About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 72
LANGUAGE
English 72
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)
edge -- >> questions to editor she mentioned the cold war. the request and asking what role does russia play in the world going forward. >> it is -- in a challenge of the finding its identity under totally different circumstances. russia has been an imperial power and it has had domestic support by its efforts in asia, the middle east and europe, depending on where it was, now russia has the problem of a declining population. declining russian population and muslim population that is forward of the muslim world. 3,000 miles from china which is based tricky dick nightmare in the sense that there are thirty million russians are on one side and 1 billion chinese on the other end the middle east which is an ideological nightmare and in europe, a historically difficult one for them so how -- and yet the image russia has of its leadership is that they have to be considered as a principal country in order to be taken seriously so fundamentally russia has to look for a pattern of cooperation but found methods of doing it but russia is not strategic to the west, bringing pressure on its neighbor
asked my teenage daughter what is going on with russia? it is a soviet union. what is that? it was of big things back then before toppled most of us had never considered iraq of saddam hussein but winning was a foregone conclusion and terrorism took us by subplot -- surprise. we thought they were rabble rouser is. the bin laden construction company how is that for irony? >> but after that things change with the world trade center bombing and september september 11th i was flying that morning. coming in from another rotation and september 10th was our first day back. essentially flying and i had come down nearly and somebody said you have to look at this. i thought what moron of the pilot could hit the tower of that size on a clear day? i thought it was an accident. then the second plane hit they sent us up to close down the airspace of the united states. that is eerie as the pilot. "o.o.p.s." is the name of the book. stephen frantzich is a professor at the u.s. naval academy and is the author. what does that stand for? >> of serving our politicians stumble. i said i need to
now in terms of how will it be taken forward with russia and china? will there be confrontation? the question that's going to be asked and needs to be asked is because strategy is needed is to go to the russians and say basically, now what do you want? the president is there for four more years, no more elections, what is it that you want? deliver what the russians or not? cold war they want or what is -- what consequences of that? from what i understand the foreign minister of russia was meeting with the gulf ministers, the gcc ministers, i, from what my information is he did not give in. they are standing exactly where they were. this is not -- the strategy is needed. it is not a strategy, and the u.s., no matter how much we try to run away from that situation in syria and israel and iran, it's, yeah, light footed or heavy footed, leadership is needed. >> one follow-up question. do you see the current situation, you talked about the instability and opportunity as they say in america, an opportunity to change the channel. is it likely an opportunity for assad to change the chan
because we cannot supply them with natural gas. instead of russia. in this environment subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. refi china and india and other emerging economies would sign nine so to reduce emissions i don't take a position nine whether man-made emissions cause global warming and i it china and india to make up 37% of the population not doing so. and the first chapter the book i talk about geo engineering solutions win to think we could reduce global temperatures by just came roofs white to reflect the race. what we're doing with a 12 billion-dollar hours it is pushing people into cars they do not want to buy raising your much as a cost we are getting rid of incandescent light bulbs and disproportionately those zero least able to afford it the lowest fifth of and come distribution spend 24 percent of income on electricity natural-gas and gasoline. that's right. spending on energy and compared to an average of 7%. it it is just strange well-intentioned people who purport to represent advocates policies that will do them harm rather than a good british edition to hurric
that russia is worried it stalled on the eastern european economy is going to fail because we can now supplied them with natural gas instead of russia being a bear sole supplier. subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. also five years ago we fought that china and india and other emerging economies might sign on to emissions reductions. and therefore that if we reduce emissions perhaps global temperatures would be reduced. i don't take a position on whether man-made emissions cause global warming or not but if we are reducing our emissions and china and india which make up 37% of the world's population are not doing so we are not going to have any effect on global temperatures and in the first chapter of the book i talk about geo engineering solutions that no prize-winning scientist paul krugman things can reduce global temperatures if we do it on our own such as breaking clouds with salt water or painting room for white to reflect the sun's rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion we're spending on alternative energy is pushing people into cars they don't want to buy, where raising elec
cheap that chemical manufacturers are attracted back to america. it's so cheap that russia is worried his hold on the eastern european economy is going to fail because we cannot supply them at natural gas in southern russia at the initial supply. in this environment, subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. also five years ago, we thought china and india and other emerging economies might sign on to emissions reduction and therefore if we reduced emissions, perhaps global temperatures would be reduced. i don't take a position on whether man-made emissions cause global warming are not, but if we are reducing emissions in china and india, which make up 37% of the worlds population are not doing so, we're not going to have any effect on global temperatures. in the first chapter of the book i talk about geoengineering solutions that nobel prize winning scientists paul crookston thinks could reduce global temperatures if we adjust honoring such as spurring water or painting rooms white to reflect the sun rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion they spent on alternative energy is pus
in syria. we've seen three security council vetoes by russia and china causing many to call the u.n., essentially, ineffective in this crisis. so it's been the interplay of these three factors, i would argue, that has led syria down the path that it has taken. in terms of u.s. policy, u.s. policy is based on the objective of having assad, as president obama called for, step aside. this was back in august of 2011. the problem with u.s. policy is that it has continually been at conflict with itself in terms of how to achieve that objective while also achieving or protecting u.s. national security interests in the region. namely, i would argue, very understandable concerns about, about the impact of unseating assad and the potential for massive instability across the region. so at the crux of u.s. policy on syria, i would argue, has resided this tension of wanting assad to go but being concerned and fearful about how to achieve that objective while also seeking to maintain stability in such a volatile region of the world. now, the debate right now on syria is focused largely on this
countries like china and russia, along with our traditional allies and a number of other states across the world have stepped up to impose the sanctions together. and you saw in the intervention in libya. we're not only our traditional european allies but our arab friends also stepped in to intervene in their own backyard. that is not leading from behind. that is leading in a way that enables others to step up, share the burdens, and be part of the solution. i think that, you know, this president has adopted a very strong and smart approach to the american leadership using all of the instruments of our national power. the military, when we must, but also much stronger on diplomacy, economic instruments and so forth. when it comes to defense and defense spending, i think this is a big difference between the two campaigns. this president has put forward a very, you know, a defense budget that is strategic in that sense it is driven by strategy but it's also driven by the legal constraints of the law that has been put in place, the budget control act those passed by a bipartisan majority
three command-and-control servers. one venezuela, one in russia and when the state senate commands for the virus u.s. intelligence concluded with high degree of confidence that the virus was developed by state-sponsored actors and ask land and not a high degree of confidence, but there is some chatter that they have another target in this virus is not going to stand oil companies. new fact. run a search on here? >> i think so. given "washington post" story says, probably something we have to worry about. [laughter] but now i think the general realization that we have not seen everything yet unfold, second that typical cyberattack activities are probably most crippling and undermining confidence of the public. and so, courses of action addresses of the public and how we'll do this. we haven't gotten a sense to the external oversees implications to the standpoint of other damage up there. i need to know from intelligence community what they know is that date from the ei, have forensics disclosed anything but give us a way to get ahead of the activity and recommended courses of action
, china, france, germany, russia, known as the p5+1, and the united kingdom have tried to negotiate with iran over its nuclear program. of sides have fumbled the opportunities to reduce the risks of nuclear-armed iran, and to prevent the risk of war, to reduce the risk of war over that nuclear program. since 2007, the u.s. and western intelligence agencies have assessed that iran is nuclear capable, meaning that iran has a scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. and those intelligence agencies continue to this day to assess that iran has not yet made a decision to do so. intelligence agencies and independent experts also believe that starting from today iran will require several months to acquire enough this'll material for just one bomb and still more time to build a deliverable nuclear weapon. secretary of defense and a estimate it would take two to three years to do so. in the latest international atomic energy agency report, based on its ongoing inspections iran's nuclear facility, particularly the fordo enrichm
, but you are engaging with countries for whom doing that is much simplerlike china, like russia, the state capital company where, you know, your company is your arm not only of foreign economic policy, but of foreign policy full stop. how do you operate in a world with players who are operating under these very different rules? >> well, it's something we do spend quite a bit of time thinking about this. it's not all about china. there are issues with other countries like -- >> russia? >> -- like russia, but not just those two. and the lines are really blurred in terms of where the state ends and where capital and corporate interests begin for many countries. at the state department, we've really tried to create mechanisms through multilateral institutions like the oecd has come up with a platform for competitive neutrality which looks at the different ways that governments can act to subsidize or to give favor to their own state-owned or state-led interests and provide some recommendations for engaging in a platform of competitive neutrality. it's a different way of thinking about the chal
the supply delivery business to russia, they left the gulf, those small number of advisors in saudi arabia and in iran stuck around for decades, and it's that role that really represented america's influence that stemmed from world war ii, the pro longed war in the gulf. >> host: professor, i think of the british when i think of the involvement in the middle east. when and how did they step back their involvement? >> guest: well, with regard to the gulf, the brits arrived in the 1800s. and it represented their quest to provide order to a part of -- on the flanks to their imperial interests in india. the southern coast of the gulf had been called in the 1800s, the pirate coast, and the constantly feuding tribes fused with one another, which spill out into the sea-born approaches to india, and result in attacks on india, and possibly resulting weakness that might bring another great power. so the british found themselves pulled into the gulf in the 1800s. not to colonize as they did further to the east in india but, rather to maintain order there, and they did, with a relatively small amount
teenage daughter, she said, what's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, the soviet union. she said once that? that it was a big thing back there in the late '80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight in the most of us had never really considered iraq on yahoo! saddam hussein was. and after that war was over, which when he was a foregone conclusion. the terrorism thing took us all by surprise but we just thought they were gravel rows, never give them too much credit. all the buildings at khobar towers were built by the bin laden construction company. they have the bin laden stands and all the -- how's that for irony? but after that things kind of change. the world trade center bombings and september 11, of course we all know what happened that day. i was actually flying that morning. we had come back from the middle east from another rotation. monday, september 10 was her first day back. and the morning of september 11 i was actually falling, and i've come down very, very early, and somebody said you've got to look at this. i've been everything as i looked at t
arab ya and the united states and russia and the european countries. what happened in lebanon -- if left to themselves, lebanon -- which is another sad story -- they might have been able to compromise and come together as they did on a number of occasion before re '7s and '80s, and work things out somehow. find some sort of system and muddle through this. but as they say in real estate, location is everything. and lebanon being between syria and israel, and of course syria itself being on the border of israel, lebanon, iraq, south of turkey, you're not going to be -- you cannot be the switzerland over the middle east. are going to have outside influences which usually exacerbate the situation and lengthen the time of the civil war. >> and so let's talk a little bit now, shifting the perspective, to the personal connections that you have to the house of assad. i would love for you to give us a good feel for, who is this man who is the president and how did he change over the time that you've known him? seems like there was a definitive time around 2005-2006 that you say he shif
, and he was the richest man in russia. kind of a bad way. and this is what he said to me about oligarchs and everybody else. if the man is not an oligarchic something is not right with him. everyone had the same starting conditions, everyone could have done it. and he really meant it. very heartfelt and not criticizing himself, he lost $100 million, he had stupidly entrusted a non oligarch. and this non oligarchic by definition not a smart guy, a few hundred million dollars. there is a little bit of that thinking a lot of these guys and it is interesting because very strong parallels, the parallel with the industrial revolution. there's a line from andrew carnegie which is very similar soak carnegie said the talent for organization is rare among men, approved by the fact that it is reward for its possessor. if a man is not an oligarch something is wrong with him. and services can be obtained as partner, the man whose service can be obtained as a partner for the first consideration such as render the question of his capital that we are considering. such men soon create capital and in the
note just in passing that my wife's father, my father-in-law was born in russia, emigrated to the united states, like the rabbi and senator kohl's father. mr. president, it took four months but the republicans will finally realizing their way back from the fiscal cliff has been right in front of them all along. in july the senate passed legislation to give economic certainty to 98% of american families and to small businesses, to every american making less than $250,000 a year. for four months we've been one vote away for from a solution to this looming crisis. they've held the middle-class hostage to protect the richest 2% of taxpayers, people who enjoyed a decade of ballooning income and shrinking tax bills. one has to admire the president, who went out and campaigned on this issue. he didn't -- he didn't in any way walk away from the issue. he said that's how we're going to get our fiscal house in order. and independents by a huge margin, democrats by a huge margin, and 41e% of republicans support what the president asked us to do. now, reasonable republicans are coming
in all of these great events and really influencing american policy toward russia and having to worry about that, and yet at the same time he was concerned about my welfare and whether or not i was learning anything. c-span: there was a moment in the book you describe where you went to his house, and you were supposed to go to see him -- i think he was up on the third floor, and you caught him watching "the dick van dyke show." what was so unusual about that? >> guest: that was such a fantastic memory for me because nixon always claimed that he never watched television, and of course he did. he liked to watch the news. he watched sporting events. he used to watch football and baseball quite avidly. but he never admitted to watching sort of mindless entertainment. so i was usually about five minutes late for our meetings at the residence in the afternoon, so he normally expected me to be late. and this one day in particular i was five minutes early, and i was walking up the stairs, and before i could clear the stairs to the third floor, i heard the television going. and then i heard ca
to the minister to russia, the first minister to russia and he couldn't speak french at the time it was in the language of international diplomacy, it was also the language spoken in the russian court, the russian devotees. francis couldn't speak french. the young john quincy could come in and he asked john adams can they take him with him to st. petersburg as the secretary of the litigation, and at 16 years of age john quincy adams goes up to st. petersburg and spends the year up there. in the wintertime it was too cold to venture out, said john quincy adams on his own had this insatiable appetite for learning on his own he read and studied the date volume history name wind by david hume, the six volumes of edward gibbons to fall in the roman empire and adams met's to volume work on the wealth of nations, the great economic work. he kept studying latin and he read all of the poet's and read cicero and read the english poets. he had a sensational appetite for learning and a 69 was still studying kunkel wrigley. i went to yale instead of harvard. ischemic but i take it as a politi
's wrong with russia? i said it's not russia, it's the soviet union. she said was that? but it's a big thing back in the late 80s and early 90s before it toppled. we were geared up to fight them and most of us have never considered iraq or knew who saddam hussein was. after that war was over, which when it was a foregone conclusion, the terrorists and they took us all by surprise. we thought they were rabble-rousers. never given too much credit. interestingly enough, all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction company and had the bin laden stamps and buildings. how's that for irony? after that, things kind of change. the world trade in their bombing and september 11, we all know what happened that day. i was flying up winning. we came back from the middle east from another rotation in the monday, september 10 was their first day back. the morning of september 11th is actually flying in it come down very, very early. somebody said hey come you got to look at this. remember the key not the first tower building, what morons could hit tower of that size on a clear day? i tho
will be global governance and others is the autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as the autocratic regime in the book and i don't see them proportion those countries in the democratic not by force. we could do it or not do it as a policy decision and other radical islam to establish sharia as the constitutional structure so there are different types of political sense. but i'm saying is the philadelphia sovereignty. thank you for your presentation. the was excellent. contrasting subjects and submission that will further weaken the sovereignty or cause us to be submissive some wouldn't even know what you're talking about, 60, 70% probably but you get into the people in this room that probably do know what you're talking about and that get elected in two years and maybe this the department that might understand this is the use of your offer action or something i thought. i am doing that and i can talk about that a little bit. that is a good question. yes, there is a new work in washington and from some of the think tanks that started the sovereignty caucus and. ther
statute and it caused turmoil between estonia and russia and lo and behold if it didn't become a lot of cyberattacks on mr. linea shutting down their telephone networks commissioning down their banking systems, websites and so on. government services and so on. it was never proven of his russia doing it, but the conclusion is that the very least of his russian hackers. in the end, nato, who is very active in helping estonia understand this, nato step dad and ultimately there's a cyberdefense center both selection. estonia is the most connected country in europe. they are a leader in the government. that's when of the reasons why estonia is super interesting. i don't know how much my time -- am i good? >> you are good. >> i'm going to spend a couple minor on other ones. okay, so there's lots of incidents in my side of e-mail, targeted attacks to u.s. satellites. it looks like someone from china. i'm not saying chinese government, but someone through china for mr. cheney servers appear to have been doing the proof of concept. they were trained to see whether they could get him into the
to russia to die. when the germans surrendered and the japanese were pushed back to their home islandislands, the american propensity to safety or human life while wasting cheap bullets and bombs reached with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the relevant evidence, recent evidence for both american and japanese sources validates president harry truman's decision to drop both bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of the military realities, illustrated by the report of dr. machine off, japan's top atomic scientist who was sent to hiroshima the following day and had to report back to the emperor and he was asked was this an atomic bomb? then came the line, how long until we can make one? that is hardly the response of somebody looking for a way to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapons at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese that it was surrender or die. which surrender came to temporary victory in the principles of american exceptionalism worldwide. unlike all the previous
east, syria, north korea, china, and russia and so forth. i would imagine a considerably lower priority. eac n >> didew cuba policy wax and wae with each new administration? >> it did. the most fee roshes opposition was during the kennedy years. jack kennedy was really determined to cosomething about the cuba problem. he was obsessed. humiliated by castro at the bay of of pigs. was lyndon johnson came after kennedy, and his obsession was vietnam.pitously cuba. declined.r, subsequent presidents such as gerald ford, jimmy carter made serious efforts to acheech a, response with castro. quite the opposite what kennedy was doing.y comby has waxed and waned. it's been a different kind of priority over the fifty years e for ten or eleven american g presidents. >> onet theerer reverse side. it did they have good assets in the u.s.? has the castro regime tried to assassinate a u.s. president. >> i continue think that -- don't think that castro had a ai directns demand the assassinatin de plotri against the american t president. mo but i do describe in the book -- some of the most startling infor
to their estimates, will overtake saudi arabia and russia as the world's top oil producer by 02017. beneficiary by 2017. the i.e.a. chief economist told a news conference in london that he believed the united states would overtake russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015 and by 2017 would become the world's largest oil producer producer. will this prediction hold out? i don't know. but are we on our way towards significant gains in terms of our energy independence? yes, we are. the language in section 313, which this amendment proposes to strike -- i want to be very clear about this -- does not affect programs that have been discussed here in such areas as hydrogen fuel as a fuel of choice for engine design or doing away with r&d dollars. it is just not true. it states in part that this restriction goes to the cost of producing or purchasing alter national fuels if they exceed the cost of producing traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose -- that's very narrowly defined. there is a second paragraph in section 313 that goes to an exception to this
.s. intelligence has identified three command and control servers. one is in russia and one in the states that are sending commands to this virus and the u.s. intelligence has now at a later concluded with a high degree of confidence that this virus was developed by state-sponsored actors in excess land, and not in the high degree of confidence that there is a shadow out there that they have another target and that this virus is not going to stay on the leal companies that could move -- oil companies that could move. if you want to start? >> i think so, given the "washington post" sources we don't have to worry about. [laughter] but now i think one, the general realization that we have not seen everything yet sold, second, typical of the cyber type of activities they are probably most crippling in undermining confidence over the public so they need courses of action to address this in the public and how they will do this we haven't really gotten the sense of the external overseas type of the implications from the standpoint of other damage out there. we need to know from the intelligence
called a nuclear threat was a real problem. during those days, the cold war really focused on russia at the united states, the two powerhouses. fast forward, you have vietnam. vietnam is an adventure into itself in terms of north and south vietnam. many of you may have served. and you move fast forward and we're going to have russia, the berlin wall came down. we will have benefits of that -- of the peace dividend. it was multiple stands. pick a stand. it became a challenge in terms of stability of government resources and the data we knew about this particular companies. move on forward, 9/11 happened. everyone of you remember is where you were on 9/11. i was on the steps of the pentagon. i literally walked out of the building that day and i was there for meeting and remember hearing on that gorgeous blue day and absolute eerie sound. like a plane had taken a wrong turn. lo and behold, the next thing i knew i was on the bottom stairs and i am thinking, how did i get from the top to bottom of the stairs? the plane hit the building. i did not know in where i was sitting at that point
, others is an autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as autocratic regimes in the book, and i don't want see any problem with the -- i don't see any problem with the united states pushing those countries if they can, not by force. we could do it or not do it, that's a policy decision. and then, of course, there's radical islam which also is a type of -- would like to establish sharia as the constitutional structure in some countries. so there are different types of political systems, and i'm saying the philadelphia sovereignty is my preferred system. and also i think it's the best system. >> thank you for your presentation. i thought it was excellent. we see this stuff happening all the time, but you've captured it in very vivid, contrasting subjects, sovereignty or submission. and in the u.n. now there are other things being negotiated that would further weaken our sovereignty or cause us to be sub missive. so i'm wondering what your actions are. when i look at the country, some huge percentage wouldn't even know what you're talking about. then you get into
be effective adversely. the dependence of europe and russia and is that necessary? secondly, ongoing arrangements generated over the last two or three decades, largely by an american strategy designed to diminish your independence in russian energy. i play the general rule in georgia and providing access in the near future, is something that i'm sure some russians would like to undercut. so even without a massive outbreak of violence in the region and escalating clinton's and explosions, that would have consequences. very adverse to europe and to the united states. these partners in the negotiating process are motivated the same way as we are, on the part of some individuals, i'm not saying this is the official russian point of view, but some individuals in russia were strategists and might take themselves that we are really sure [inaudible] two that's interesting but let me play devil's advocate for a second. containment, in essence, it's on the brink of war. when the russians were those who may have different interest still be able to achieve some of those objectives when it comes
and russia back to the u.s. liquid nitrogen would freeze it. they have to be kept cool. this can be done. i think they use pcr to allergy and a lot of other fancy laboratory things to extract not by virus. you can extract by virus. you can't grow it. you can extract dna and rna to identify what was there. that's what nathan wolfe and his people are doing. the idea to spot the next one and a very, very early phase, decades passed before he realized that hiv was in the human population. va just trying catch the next big one much earlier than that. >> how did these deadly animal viruses tend to revolve? do you think they will continue to evolve at the rate they have done in the recent experience of monitoring and trying to control them? >> two things can happen. say you are a monkey living in central africa. they are tearing down your habitat. 1010 the monkey habitat. they're killing the monkey for food, building villages, settlements, timber can. so the horizon, the prospects of the particular virus are shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. at the point where the monkey approaches the brink
soldiers in vast numbers been sent to russia to die. when the germans surrendered in japanese are pushed back to their home islands, the american propensity to save dear human life are wasting cheap wallets and bombs reached at cnet with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the evidence -- recent evidence from american and japanese validates president kerry truman's decision to drop both bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of military reality illustrated by the report of dr. machine. japan's top atomic scientist sent out to hear a shame that the following day and had to report back to the emperor and he was fast, was this an atomic bomb? then came the line, how long -- attended the response of some of the camp to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapon at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese study was surrender or die. when japan's surrender became the temporary picture of the principles of american exceptionalism worldwide. unlike all the previous empires commit the u.
. with the ottoman empire spain, russia flourishing between 20 and 50 years this is the space allotted for imperial much 70. we do decadence going from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves going from exploration to exploitation with the welfare state. and then at the declining nation it suggests it is no different than the family. both recapitulate tendencies and like the human evolves list direction that may live to be 120 years but no longer through predictable stages and the state however powerful. we see the signs are positive. but in all empire strikes could be materialism and and frivolity and the weakening of religion and a weakening of the world. as a search for survival he writes everyone can contribute to by working harder and only a revival of spiritual devotion can't inspire selfless service and each can contribute by leading moral and dedicated lives if we have no leaders we must go loan. we had the l.a. of the bridge and perhaps not quite the time to ask how can manned by better? it is evident the time for sacrifice with the judeo-christian values is near. with the notions of birth control se
, that the united states had the responsibility to protect the independence of nations from communistic russia. this may south vietnam. now, kennedy had raised troop levels. i won't go into all the things that truman and eisenhower did, but right alone, we are very heavily involved in protect and south vietnam and johnston believed that these prior commitments committed him. he also is a strong cold war era. he is to comment on how the young people protesting simply didn't understand communism because they'd never grown up or had to fight world war ii. they didn't know what appeasement meant in munich, you know, chamberlain forth. the united states must keep its commitments. it was johnson's great misfortune when you either had to fish. kennedy didn't have to do it. >> host: you are referring of course to the nominal theory. >> guest: is a very good cold warrior, but i never bought the domino theory. because this has always made every disappeared histories that this is america thinking that you put up a solid wall. not just united front, the sheer method is just no opposition on these issues a
into germany to sustain the war effort while german soldiers in vast numbers were being sent to russia to die. the germans surrendered in the japanese were pushed back to their home islands, and the american to save human lives while the statute votes and bombs reached its zenith with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. virtually all of the relevant evidence, recent evidence from american and japanese sources nowadays president harry truman's decision to drop those bombs. japanese leaders did not display the slightest acknowledgment of military reality illustrated by the report of dr. sheena. japan's top atomic scientist sent down to hear a shame of following day and had to report back to the emperor. he was asked, was this an atomic bomb? dan kim the line, how long until we can make money? is hardly the response of somebody looking for a way to surrender. truman intended to show japan that he would use any weapon at our disposal. there was no atomic diplomacy. he wanted to show the japanese it was surrender or die. became a temporary victory the principles of american exceptionalism worldw
diplomacy. this is something that really works. i try to expand it to russia, which i think is kind of a cool idea, but got shut down by the embassy. but at any rate, it's a great idea, needs to be bigger. used to be the chairman of the bbc. has been impossible mission -- and possible because this has to do two things at the same time that are very difficult to reconcile, although in my view it's an excellent job of records failing. number one, it is a tool of american foreign policy. number two, it is a real, journalistic institution that needs to abide by normal journalistic principles. so how can he do both of those the same time? well, it is hard especially if you have members of congress who don't understand what the law actually says. so i've actually come around to the view, which i never stated before and i kind of have resisted this for a long time. they really do think it needs to be much more -- needs to be brought into the broader foreign policy making apparatus of the united states government. otherwise i don't think it's going to survive. so i think that tension needs
korea, north korea, russia and japan all have leadership succession or elections during that year. it inevitably makes the top leaders focused inward on leadership issues, very unwilling to appear to be in any way weak abroad and so forth. 2013 is the opposite. you would expect the new leaders knowing they have to deal with each other for years to come potentially have a more positive agenda looking forward. how do we build something that's not going to impose high costs is and have few benefits? every one of those leaders has enormous domestic problems that they have to confront, and they want some more space to pursue that. so i think there's an underlying, you know, the kind of underlying tectonic plates are moving at a somewhat different direction in 2013. obviously, specific events can throw that out of whack, and if you look at the details, they're pretty tough. on xi personally, you know, he has evinced some, you know, he has some exposure to the u.s., he seems to enjoy being here when he's been here, he has good relations with vice president biden and so forth. he seems to
to criticize that just because want to see a wider solution. >> in light of the blocking that russia and china has taken against syria have that actually contribute any money to the humanitarian crisis that now exist in syria? >> i think occupation from russia and china have been very small. i will have to write to the honorable lady with details about the. they are not so large that have been committed in my mind, let us put it that way. we will encourage, i have encouraged before russia to make a contribution to those u.n. funds, but the biggest contribution, the biggest occupation comes from the states emphatically from the european union, third from the united kingdom. and, of course, we are also contributing the european union money. so the backing for these things is very heavily western as things stand. >> i know the foreign secretary said he didn't want to debate about the portion it or proportion. but while he is right to condemn militant rocket attacks would not also condemn the loss of innocent lives, particularly children? and with respect to both the u.n., is he out to be convince
critical level. this here comment usaid was booted out of russia initially when i went there to help the russian people, one of the first things they did with the help of the russians to two extreme poverty. my question is, is the risk too much for us so that we would basically go winhelp the nation and state thank you and don't let the door hit you on the way out? thank you. >> first of all, the indonesian case, part of that is just cultural. they are far more sensitive to questions of faith than we are. so it's not infrequent that we would behave in a way that doesn't take into account adequately their cultural sensitivities. but this happens all the time in life and i think you have to ask yourself what's the right thing to do and you try and do it. if you make your very best effort and someone isn't appreciative, you didn't do anything wrong. don't worry about it. and sometimes that happens. i wouldn't hesitate to help people because someone related to a recipient is resentful that they weren't helped by their own kind. i would want to help. >> if i could have something to the in
in the marketplace of ideas. with state capitalism in russia, china and the persian gulf, with political islam in the middle east. with a left wing grant a democratic populism in latin america. and then out expect nation that every country would actually converge and ultimately want to look like us will not prove to be accurate. let me give you a sense as to why i think we are heading toward diversity rather than toward ideological convergence. in my mind, the rise of the west followed a unique political and social trajectory. we as americans find our roots in the year 1000, 1100, when europe began to fragment. when the three traditional institutions of authority, the monarchy, the ability -- nobility and the catholic church began to lose their strangled over society. blacksmiths, early bankers, early professionals began to push back against traditional society. and that middle-class grew in size and strength and became the vanguard of the revolution that became the west. about religious pluralism to the reformation, and then when you about political pluralism. because monarchs said to the ris
up to fight the soviet union. i asked my teenage daughter, what is wrong with russia? what is the soviet union? it was a big thing in the late 80s and >> host:s. we were geared up to fight them and most of us had never considered iraq or saddam hussein. after that war was over which winning was a foregone conclusion. the terrorism thing to pass all by surprise. we just thought they were rabble rouser is. never gave the much credit. interestingly all the buildings were built by the bin laden construction co. and had bin laden stamps. how's that for irony? but after that, things change, you had the world trade center bombings and then september 11th, we all know what happened that day. i was actually flying that morning, we come back from the middle east, from another rotation and monday, september 10th was our first day back and the morning of september 11th i was flying and i would come down very, very early and someone said look at this, and i remember thinking as i looked at the first tower, what kind of a more of a pilot could hit a tower that size on a clear day? i thou
in the russians had behaved, i don't think we can give up on russia because they do know the syrian military there in getting bashar al-assad out of the country is not going to solve all the problems. if he leaves, particularly if he were to leave tomorrow, let's say, you would have fragmentation in syria for both sides this is an existential struggle. and alawite dominated army is not going to give up because bashar gave up. and the competition is not going to lay down their arms because bashar less. so i think we very much, if there's going to be any hope for resolution that keeps syria impact for the time being we need the russians, and we need putin, and we need them to recognize that their nihilistic attitude right now doesn't play well. and i would suggest that a number of countries might do better by putting pressure on russia rather than excoriating the united states. i do believe in military intervention. i think we could very well find ourselves backing one side and then only to find that we're incapable of stopping them from occurring the other side if they defeat them. we've seen
of russia initially when they went there to help the russian people, one of the first things they did with the help of the russians to two extreme poverty. my question is, is a risk too much for us so that we would a sickly state thank you and to let the door his shoe on the way out. >> obviously an indonesian case, part of that is just their farm are sensitive to questions of faith and we are so it's not infrequent we would behave in a way that doesn't take into account adequately their cultural sensitivities. this happens all the time and life. what's the right thing to do if someone isn't appreciative you didn't do anything wrong. don't worry about it and sometimes that happens. i wouldn't hesitate to help people unless someone related to the recipient weren't helped by their own kind. i would like to help. >> and i could add something to the indonesian case, there's a thing that exacerbated the relationship that made us were challenging for the ambassador. i'm sure we were still there when he was president wesley had a a policy decision here in the u.s. regarding the military enga
by china, by russia, but others and look for them is one of the biggest is. well it's the u.s. not only national security secrets, the commercial seats as be of much of can be gleaned or stolen from cyberspace. it is a dire threat in part because we shifted so much attention, so much resource and the counterterrorism arena we've forgotten the necessity of old-fashioned counterintelligence and that's an important element of this. >> often i've heard some people involved in counterintelligence tends to be seen as the redheaded stepchild of the intelligence world. why is that when we need it and what is the cure for a? effect in part because it's something we don't want to think about. to think that our agencies and businesses have been penetrated by a foreign power, criminal organization and would rather think about how do we achieve that goal? a foreign-policy goal or profit objectives. but it's more fun. that is more positive and we are very positive nation. we can also be more disciplined about how we think of protecting our intellectual property and most of all our people. >> one of t
, potentially -- occasionally, and then russia. [laughter] and 70% of the world's energy is here. energy becomes so dray dramaticy contagious. what do you do? briefly over human rights. i do believe between democracy and dictatorship is this, a soft asset, but a very important one that why india does not record in human rights that, you know, necessarily be proud of, but they have accountability, and, therefore, i believe that whereas china could be a successful nation, it cannot be a modern nation, and it's only a modern nation if it permits democracy and if it permits secularism, the equality and presence of it. until then, it's successful, but not modern. >> james? >> three things very quickly. first, i want to just follow directly on the admiral's comments about the u.n. convention on the law of the sea. it is remarkable to many of the u.s. military that united states is not ratified the convention. we had a pretty sincere effort to bring it forward to the senate. we were a couple of votes short. i think senator my -- mikulski for the support. i think we can take that up again and get it don
to end up like russia. there are thousands of family in cincinnati that have led from socialism. if we have obama as president socialism will be in the united states. host: less of a map to get a sense of where the candidates have been. -- let's look at a map to get a sense of where the candidates have been. all the candidates have been crisscrossing ohio. the other battleground states colorado, iowa, and now wisconsin. minnesota is in play. a romney in pennsylvania. the states of getting the most attention since the party conventions. they have been traveling to a total of 10 states. later this afternoon we will have live coverage of bombing donald. he will be joined by two of the romney sons. they are in virginia. good afternoon. caller: hello. i voted for obama because i am highly impressed with his leadership and the leadership he has shown throughout his administration. i am also impressed with his vice-president mr. joe biden. they work together as a team. we need to finish what we started. i also enjoyed listening to mr. biden's comment today about mitt romney. he said mitt romn
in power and maintain control over at least part of syria and that of course is russia and iran and the result would be al-assad steven pour and the victory which is not going to be good for our simultaneous efforts to try to move iran to the negotiating table to seize the nuclear weapons, and in white portions of syria, a no-man's land rather like the fata of somalia where the militants perhaps probably associated with al qaeda would find a new home. we already see some of this. this is another reason why the administration needs to engage in putting in beijing through military means if necessary the merkley or indirectly through providing weapons and things like no-fly zones. we need to do more and we need to do more urgently or this is great to slip out of control. at best -- and it isn't very good at sifry at salles -- at worst we are going to see any emerging sunni shia fisher across the middle east would be followed by violence and fighting in iraq and elsewhere. let me touch on iraq. it hasn't received too much commentary either in the debates in the campaign or even some
that are of concern to the u.s.. when you look at the consequences for russia, i mean this is not just a regional question. it is about the relationship with another superpower with the u.n.. it's interesting, i am sure that a good percentage of the people here, when bush asked to go to war in iraq without a resolution we are very uncomfortable asking without the resolution and yet we find people now saying maybe obama should do it but for different reasons. i think it's a really big problem for the administration. it's not tied to the election. i think the elections and themselves have problems. >> actually a cautious approach example. >> let me say i agree 100%. don't get me wrong. i don't think us going in and invading, either way there are going to be these perceptions along with the perception of the positive images of the west i was helping syria is by no means going to change the perceptions that we help some countries because of resources versus others. i agree with that 100%. >> i think there's a growing trend in kind -- inside of washington to favor intervention in syria, some kind of
. they did it with me first and then the israeli embassy in russia's refusal, the chinese refusal. it was an interesting experience . thank you pay much for inviting me. >> governor sununu. >> like to just add something to with the speaker has just pointed out. the climate really was different at that time. this is not a big piece of legislation we were very hard on on a bipartisan atheist. we passed the clean air bill, which had been languishing for over a decade. we passed an americans with disabilities, which is extremely difficult. we passed the civil rights bill. said there was a precedent in terms of cooperation and climate. as representatives obey pointed out later on, that is manifested in what was brilliant on precedented interaction between the white house and congress on dealing the invasion to kuwait and tried to pull together a unified respect you. it was an accidental. i really believe we work awfully hard in order to maintain. the keyword was the fact that tom foley and president bush have been members of congress to get there. they had developed a personal relation
phone, we brought in china, india and russia. again, secretary of state would have to go two or three times a year. we also articulate we would maintain our force levels. we got off to a good start. but i can only say that we partially succeeded in elevating the importance of asia. partly because even i was at the time in his and other economies was coming, was not crystal-clear as it is today. and partly because secretary and the president kept getting dragged akin to other issues. you asked about the presence the. he thought the issue was important. he realized the importance of trade and so on. the first couple years of his initiation of clinton focus on the domestic economy which by the what was the most single important thing you can do for your foreign policy, above all today. so, and christopher spent a lot of time in asia and went out, secretary christopher, to the region, but he often would get subsumed in the bosnia crisis. we have somalia and haiti and other crises in the middle east. and so although we raise the profile, i don't think we were able to succeed, certainly as
in a stone in 2007 during a dispute with russia -- estonia, and various banks and government institutions in estonia were hit with denial of service attacks. just to say, attacks that kept those institutions from at least running on the internet, capped their websites working, maybe disrupted their operations one way or another the interestingly in response to the estonia events, nato established a cybersecurity center of excellence in estonia in 2008, and they've been studying this from nader's perspective from a law of war perspective since then. recently published a very comprehensive treatise on the subject of law of war and cyber warfare. you see the same thing in georgia. press accounts suggesting that the russian government was behind cyberattacks that occurred contemporaneously prior to land forces going into georgia in 2008. and there are other examples like this, and is one of the panelists mentioned, as john mentioned in his introduction, even secretary panetta recently gave a speech, and according to press accounts officials at dod have suggested that iran has been behind a nu
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)